Bangalore District Court
Shiva Shankar Chari vs T. Bavajee on 17 July, 2025
KABC020252032019
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 17th day of July 2025
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE & MEMBER,
MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.6015/2019
Petitioners Shri Shiva Shankar Chari,
Son of Yallachari,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at Nugul Bande,
Mulbagal,
Kolar District.
Dead by his Lrs.
1(a) Smt.Veena,
Wife of Late Shiva Shankara
Chari,
Aged about 25 years,
1(b) Kumari Sapthashri Nidhi,
Daughter of Late Shiva
2 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019
Shankara Chari,
Aged about 4 years,
1(c) Kumari Priyamani,
Daughter of Late Shiva
Shankara Chari,
Aged about 2 years,
No.1(b) to 1(c) are minors,
Represented by their
mother/next friend/natural
guardian
All are residing at
Noogalabande Village,
Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Pleader Sri.T.V.Ramesh)
V/s
Respondents 1. Shri T.Bavajee,
Son of Ahamad Saheb,
Major,
Residing at D.No.10-P36,
Punganur town,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh-517 247.
(By Pleader Shri Basavaraj
G. Hallad)
2. The Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd floor,
S & S Corner Building,
Opp. Bowring and Lady
Curzon Hospital,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Pleader Shri
3 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019
S.R.Murthy)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the deceased petitioner during his life time, subsequently, the L.Rs. of the deceased petitioner U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the death of Shivashankarchari in a road traffic accident, during the proceedings of the case.
The brief facts of the petitioners' case are as under:
2. On the fateful day of 31.8.2019 at about 1.30 a.m. deceased-petitioner was working as a cleaner under the respondent No.1 in his Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U-9159.
Accordingly on the instructions given by the respondent No.1, on 31.8.2019 the deceased petitioner was on the way at about 1.30 a.m. near Varigapalli village on Chittoor-Bengaluru Highway road, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, J.Muzamil Khan was the driver of the Eicher vehicle drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against mud heap laid for diversion of newly constructing highway road, resulting the vehicle turtle on the road. The 4 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 cleaner Shivashankarachari caught inside the cabin and sustained grievous injuries.
3. Immediately, Shivashankarchari was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. After first aid treatment he was referred to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, After MRI scan of spine burst fracture of D12 body with posterior listhesis and retropulsion of fracture fragments causing cord edema and significant canal stenosis with focal disruption of supraspinous and interspinous ligaments are noticed and treated by spinal fusion procedure with implants. The deceased petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 31.8.2019 to 20.9.2019. Thereafter he took the treatment as an outpatient at R.L.Jalappa hospital and also under Dr.Imran Hussain, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Kolar. On 9.11.2019 the deceased died due to bed sore, lung infection on account of the injuries sustained in the accident on 31.8.2019.
4. It is further stated that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 27 years, cleaner under the respondent No.1 and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing entire income towards the welfare of the family. Due 5 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 to unnatural death of the deceased, life of the petitioners became dark, miserable and put to great financial hardship.
5. It is contended that, the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the Eicher vehicle vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03- U-9159. In this regard, Yadamari Police have registered the case against the driver of the said vehicle in Crime No.85/2019. As such, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, this petition.
6. In response to the notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel, inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the respondent No.1 has not filed his written statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has filed its written statements.
7. In the written statement, the respondent No.2 has contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent has admitted about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Eicher vehicle vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U-9159 and the 6 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 liability of this respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is also contention of the respondent No.2 that, driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It is the defence of the respondent No.2 that, the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the eicher vehicle. It is also contention of the respondent No.2 that there is delay in lodging the complaint. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and relationship between deceased with the petitioners. Ultimately contended that the claim of the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.
8. Further the respondent No.2 has filed additional written statement and contended that deceased Shivashankara chari was died on 9.11.2019, after lapses of three months from the alleged accident date i.e., 31.8.2019 and hence, there was no nexus between the death and the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. False complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police station, which are after thought and created. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/20199. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also filed additional written statement and contended that the medical records produced by the petitioner i.e., discharge summary and other documents shows patient gives h/o accidental fall from two wheeler, it clearly shows that eicher vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition
10. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties, this tribunal has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that Sri. Shivashankarachari had died due to the injuries sustained by him in amotor vehicle accident that was taken place on 31.8.2019 at about 1.30 a.m. near Varigapalli Village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor district, Andhrapradesh due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U-9159 in an actionable negligence?
2) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3) What order or award?8 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019
Additional Issue:
1) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U-
9159 was falsely implicated in the case?
11. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1(a) examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. Apart from her evidence placed the evidence of Junior Executive Officer at Jalappa Hospital as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P18 & Ex.P19. Further examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW3.
12. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined Senior Executive as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. The RW1 evidence was discarded as he left the respondent No.2 company. Later examined the Legal Officer of the respondent No.2 insurance company as RW2. He has placed Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.
13. The counsel for the LRs of the deceased petitioner and the respondent No.2 have filed written arguments.
9 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/201914. At the time of arguments the counsel for the LRs. of the petitioner has relied the following decisions
1) 2009 ACJ 1725 between Bhimala Devi & Others Vs, Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "claimants have to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and not standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt."
2) Civil Apeal in Special leave petition (Civil) No.8551/2024 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "if the insurance company had a case that there was collusion between the driver/owner of the truck and the claimants, it ought to discharge that burden."
3) 2022 ACJ 754 (SC) between Afsana and others Vs. Kundi Knit Fab Pvt. Ltd., & Another Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "if a person dies due to injuries suffered by him in RTA and confined to bed and suffering from quadriplegia then it can be said that death occurred due to injuries sustained by him in RTA.
10 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/20194) MFA No.22345/2010 (MV) DD dated 27.2.2013 between Basavanneppa and dead by his Lrs 1A to 1C Vs. Subhash R.Halagali and another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "if a person dies due to severe infection due to long bed ridden then it can be considered as fatal accident."
15. At the time of arguments the counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied the following decisions;
1) ILR 1990 KAR 4300 Kanamma Vs. General Manager,
2) ILR 2002 KAR 1864 Uttam Kumar Vs. Madhv & Another
3) ILR 2002 KAR 660 Baburao Sataba Manabutakar deceased by his Lrs. Vs. Doreswamy and others I have gone through the supra decisions wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "person's claim for compensation for personal injuries caused in a motor accident does not, on that persons death and not being the consequences of such injuries, survive to his or her legal representatives."
11 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/20194) MFA No. 4427/2010 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shanthi Mascarenhas & Another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "if delay is caused by the petitioner for disposal of claim petition then the commissioner is not entitled for interest."
6) 2010 ACJ 1667 KAR between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs., V/s B.C.Kumar & Another
7) Northwest Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gourabai & Others
8) MFA 1519/2009 (WC) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Jali Siddappa & Another
9) ILR 2009 KAR 3562 between Veerappa & Another Vs. Siddappa & Another
10) 2000 ACJ 1032 SC between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Rajendra Singh & Others Co. Ltd.,
11) Special leave appeal No.32138/2018 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Velu & Another
12) MFA 10554 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Thammaiah & Another
13) ILR 2014 KAR 3336 between Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Kempamma & Others 12 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 I have gone through the supra decisions wherein the common principle laid down in the supra decisions is that "the Tribunal has to go through the medical records while forming its opinion."
14) 2005 ACJ 1323 SC between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel & Others The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "death of or personal injury caused to workmen in motor accident arising out of and in course of employment, the liability of insurance company u/s 147 is confined to that arising under section IV Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, however, it is permissible for owner/employer to take such a policy where under entire liability in respect of death of or personal injury to any such employee as described in sub clauses (a) (b) or (c) of proviso (I) to section 147(1)(b), may be fastened upon the insurance company and insurance company may become liable to satisfy entire award under section 166 of MV Act, to injured workmen or legal heirs of deceased workmen."
16. My findings to the above issues as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Additional Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order, 13 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 for the following:
R E A S O N S ISSUE No.1 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1:-
17. These issues are interlinked with each other in order to avoid repetition of facts these issues are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
18. In the case on hand, the petitioner Shivashankarchari at the first instance, filed his claim petition claiming compensation consequent upon the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Subsequently, during the proceedings of the case, he reported to be dead. Thereafter, his legal representatives appeared before the court through due process of law. On going through the present facts and circumstances of the case, two material points are required to be taken in to consideration, in order to come to the proper conclusion in connection with the above issues.
19. First question is to be considered before this court is, whether deceased Shivashankarchari sustained grievous injuries, due to the accident, which had taken place on 31.8.2019 at about 1.30 14 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U-9159 in an actionable negligence? Second material point for consideration before this court is, whether there is a direct nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of Shri Shivashankarchari? In connection with these two material points, the respondent No.1 appeared but not filed any written statement to challenge the case of the petitioner during his life time and subsequently, his legal representatives.
20. On the contrary, the respondent No.1 being the insurance company though not disputed the accident and injuries sustained by the Shivashankarchari, seriously denied the assertion of the legal heirs of the Shivashankarchari contending that, there is no direct nexus between the accidental injuries and death of Shivashankarchari during the proceedings of the case. Further, denied the allegation of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of rival contentions of both the parties, it is abundant duty of the court to scrutinize the materials available on record, in order to come to the proper conclusion with respect to the above fact in issue.
15 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/201921. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner Shivashankarchari, though filed claim petition during his lifetime, prior to the commencement of his evidence, reported to be dead on 9.11.2019. To discharge the burden lies on the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, L.R.No.1(a) Smt.Veena, placed her affidavit evidence, by reiterating the main petition averments, about the accidental injuries sustained by her husband and subsequent death of her husband due to the accidental injuries consequent upon the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In connection with the death of her husband during the proceedings of the case, she has stated that, while taking treatment in the R.L.Jalappa hospital, Kolar he was diagnosed, LS burst fracture of D12 body with posterior listhesis and retropulsion of fracture fragments causing cord edema and significant canal stenosis with focal disruption of supraspinous and interspinour ligaments with retropulsion with paraplegia. In connection with these injuries, treatment was given as an inpatient from 31.8.2019 to 20.9.2019. Thereafter her husband was under treatment as an outpatient. PW1 further stated that there was an infection to left glueteal region, due to lying on bed without changing the 16 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 position for long time, again her husband got admitted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital on 10.10.2019. In the said hospital, bedsore over bilateral glueteal region measuring 15X15 CMS with open wound (ulcer) with purulent discharge foul smelling at muscle and bone and diagnosed infected grade III pressure sore on the let glueteal region. Since there was unbearable foul smelling and his physical body condition deteriorated day-by-day the doctors advised to take home since he will not survive inspite of any treatment as he was not responding to the treatment. Accordingly he was discharged on 23.10.2019. Thereafter, her husband's physical condition was deteriorated day-by-day, finally on 9.11.2019 he succumbed to the injuries.
22. Apart from the evidence of PW1, to substantiate the stand of the petitioners, about the injuries sustained by the husband of the PW1 and its consequences, Dr.Nagaraj B.N. was examined as PW3. PW3 stated that, on the history of RTA, husband of the PW1 had sustained injuries loss of power in both lower limbs. He was suffering from burst fracture of D12 vertebral body with posterior listhesis and retropulsion of the fracture fragment causing cord edema and significant canal stenosis 17 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 with focal disruption with paraplegia. He was initially treated at Government Hospital, Chittoor and later treated at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. Thereafter, he took treatment as an outpatient. In the said hospital with infected grade III pressure sore of the left gluteal region, the investigation showed multiple organism growth in the bed sore wound, he was advised wound debridement with VAC dressing. After getting various procedures discharged on 23.10.2019 on request.
23. Further, he deposed that, patient expired at his house on 9.11.2019. As per the medical records and the sequel of treatment taken due to the injuries caused due to RTA the cause of death is related to his injuries sustained in the accident.
24. Along with the evidence of PW1 & PW3, it is important herein, to appreciate the documentary evidence placed from the side of the petitioners in toto, in order to come to the proper conclusion. On perusal of the documents evident that, alleged accident had taken place on 31.8.2019. First information in this regard was given on 4.9.2019 by one T.Bavaji, who is none other than the owner of the Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-V-
18 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/20199159. On the basis of his information, criminal law set in motion against the offending vehicle by name J.Muzamil Khan on the allegation that, he had committed the offences punishable under section 279 & 337 of the IPC. In the recitals of the complaint, there is a clear mention about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and injuries sustained by the Shivashankarchari, to his waist and other parts of the body and the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint.
25. In connection with the Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P2(a), to prove the innocence of the driver of the offending vehicle, he has not made an effort to question the said documents, nor filed counter complaint, well in time before the competent court of law. As such, it is not in dispute that, in connection with the present accident case has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Even the owner of the offending vehicle himself gave first information about the accident.
26. On going through the documents Ex.P3- spot sketch, Ex.P3(a) translated copy of spot sketch, Ex.P4-Accident information report, Ex.P5-wound 19 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 certificate and Ex.P6-charge sheet clearly discloses that, based upon the first information statement given by the respondent No.1, the S.H.O. of Yadamari P.S. have registered the case against the driver of Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP- 03-U-9159 for the offences punishable under sections 279 & 337 of IPC. Upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet against driver of the Eicher vehicle vehicle bearing registration No.KA-17- MA-4393 alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under section 279 & 337 of IPC. The recitals of police papers fully gives clear picture about the injuries sustained by the petitioner, in the alleged accident in question.
27. On the other hand, the RW2, being the Legal Officer of the respondent company in his examination-in-chief evidence stated that, false complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police station after lapse of four days, The discharge summary and medical records show that h/o accidental fall from two wheeler it clearly shows the eicher vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The deceased petitioner was a cleaner under the respondent No.1, hence, the liability of respondent 20 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 No.2 is restricted to W.C. Act. At the time of his cross-examination, he has admitted that T.Bavaji is the respondent No.1. Further admitted that in their office they have team of doctors, he has not taken any opinion from the doctor. The respondent No.2 has not examined author of the document to show prove that h/o accidental fall from two wheeler.
28. It is the strong contention of respondent No.2 that, injuries sustained by the deceased Shivashankarchari consequent upon the accident, there is no nexus between the said injuries and subsequent to his death. In this regard appreciation of the entire medical evidence is required herein. When the respondent company is seriously disputing about the nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of Shivashankarchari, duty is more on the part of the court to assess the medical documents available on record, with due care.
29. On keen observation of the medical records submitted by the petitioners evident that, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 discharge summaries of R.L. Jalappa Hospital reveal that, on 2.9.2010 the deceased admitted to the hospital, wherein, diagnosed as L1 wedge compression fracture for which the deceased 21 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 petitioner underwent spinal fusion procedure with implants, later he was discharged from the said hospital on 20.9.2019. Thereafter admitted to the said hospital on 10.10.2019 for infected grde III pressure sore on left glueteal region and underwent wound debridement with vaccum dressing and again discharged on 23.10.2019. Further Ex.P11 operation notes reveals that low back midline incision is made, spine exposed, L4/L5 decompression done, L4-L5 fusion done with cage, plate and screw, hemostasis achieved and drain placed, incision closed in layers. The same is forthcoming in the IP records placed by PW2 marked at Ex.P19.
30. On going through the history of patient illness and mode of treatment given to Shivashankarchari, clearly evident about seriousness consequence of the injuries sustained by the deceased/petitioner consequent upon the accidental injuries. Courses taken in the hospital clearly evident about the severity of the injuries and advices given in the respective hospitals evident that, there was no complete treatment process in the hospitals.
22 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/201931. On the other hand, on going through the Ex.P19, case sheets of Shivashankarchari disclose that up to 23.10.2019, he took treatment. Subsequently on 9.11.2019 he succumbed to the injuries. Over all appreciation of discharge summaries and medical records submitted by the petitioner, gives an access to accept the case of the petitioners to the effect that, there is a direct nexus between accidental injuries and the death of Shivashankarchari during the proceedings of the case. Absence of the post mortem report, and inquest mahazar will not take away the entire case of the petitioners. The respondent company, except the evidence of RW2, not produced any contra materials, to disprove the recitals of the medical documents submitted by the petitioners to disbelieve the nature of the injuries.
32. At the time of cross-examination of PW1, denied the suggestion that, the injuries sustained by the petitioner's husband had only due to self fall. Apart from this, she denied the suggestion that, there is no direct nexus between the accidental injuries sustained by her husband and his subsequent death.
23 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/201933. On the other hand, PW3 in his cross- examination admitted that, he is not the treated doctor of the deceased petitioner. Prior to the approach of his hospital, the petitioner had taken treatment in several hospitals, but he has not gone through the discharge summary. Further admitted that the reasons for the death cannot be said if post mortem report is not there. Further denied the suggestion that the deceased petitioner had died for some other reason and not due to the accidental injuries.
34. Over all appreciation of police papers, it is crystal clear that, alleged accident had taken on 31.8.2019, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which causes injuries to Shivashankarchari at first instance. Further on appreciation of entire medical documents in the light of the evidence given PW3, primafacie evident that there is a direct nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of Shivashankarchari. The evidence given by the petitioners prevails over the evidence of the respondent company. Accordingly, without further discussions, I am answering the Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Additional issue No.1 is in the Negative.
24 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019ISSUE No.2:
35. Now coming to the point of quantum of compensation for which, the petitioners are entitled is concerned, every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person, due to a motor vehicle accident, should have remedy for realization of compensation. Since in the death case, the legal heirs are the claimants. In the case on hand, the relationship of deceased with the petitioners is not in dispute. At the same time, the documents produced by the petitioners, to prove their relationship with the deceased marked at Ex.P12 to Ex.P15 i.e., Aadhar cards of deceased petitioner, L.R.(a) and birth certificates of LR(b) & LR(c), have not been disputed by the other side. The recitals of the above documents clearly speak about the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased.
36. Another aspect to be considered herein that, on going through the particulars of the petitioners mentioned in the cause title of the petition reflected that, the LR 1(a) of the deceased has lost the love and affection of her husband and the LR 1(b) & LR1(c) of the deceased petitioner have lost the love and affection of their father, who was 25 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 the backbone of the family. Hence, it is crystal clear that, the petitioners were dependents on the deceased during his lifetime.
37. The petitioners herein, have placed Aadhar card, which is marked at Ex.P12 to prove the actual age of the deceased as on the date of the accident.
On going through the said document, the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 15.4.1992. The accident occurred on 31.8.2019. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years. For his age, multiplier '17' is applicable as per the ratio in "Sarala Verma"
Case.
38. In connection with the work of the deceased, in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW1 stated that, deceased was working as a cleaner and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners have not placed any documents to show the income of the deceased. Hence, in the absence of the definite income of the deceased, it is opt to consider the notional income as per law. It is pertinent to note that, the alleged accident had taken place in the year 2019. By keeping in mind about the year of the accident and 26 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 also notional income chart, I am of the view that, it is apt to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- for the year 2019.
39. Apart from this, it is also relevant to discuss, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in, 2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, " It was observed that, "While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of 27 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. "
40. Having considered the above, as per law laid down in the above case, in connection with the deduction of personal and living expenses is concerned, it is settled that, "where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one third (1/8th ) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, (1/4 th) where the number of dependent family member is 4 to 6 and one fifth (1/5 th ) where the number of the dependent family members exceeds six."
41. In the light of the above proposition, in the case on hand, there are three persons were depending upon the income of the deceased. Hence, as per the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses out of the total compensation.
42. In the present case, deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of the accident. For this age multiplier "17" is applicable. And by relying on the aforesaid principle laid down in the Pranay Sethi's case with respect to the age of the deceased and also on going through the nature of the occupation forthcoming in the petition averments, it 28 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 is evident that, the deceased herein is not having permanent job and accurate income for consideration. As such, deceased was comes under the purview of below 40 years, 40% income of the deceased has to be taken into account towards future prospects. Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month. Annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,68,000/- per year. Along with this, the future prospects of 40% is to be taken in to consideration, then the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.1,68,000+67,200) = Rs.2,35,200/-. And 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in the income of the deceased. Thus, net loss of income comes to Rs.1,56,800/- (Rs.2,35,200-Rs.78,400). This income has to be multiplied by multiplier "17" which comes to Rs.26,65,600/-.
43. Apart from this aspect, in connection with the loss of estate, consortium and with respect to the funeral expenses to calculate the quantum of the compensation under the aforesaid heads, it is relevant to note herein the following authority;
2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, 29 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 The Hon'ble Apex Court discussed various aspects in connection with the claim petition filed by the claimants for compensation. And also observed that while determining the claim petition, the reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
44. By relying upon the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and also by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Company Limited v/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, the amount of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the L.R.1(a) to L.R.1(c) of the deceased-petitioner under the head loss of consortium.
45. Further PW1 has placed medical bills of Rs.16,611/- as per Ex.P16 along with prescriptions at Ex.P17 for having spent the amount towards medical expenses of the deceased petitioner. There are no contra materials available to disprove the 30 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 medical bills. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.16,611/- towards medical expenses.
46. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
Amount
Towards loss of Rs.26,65,600-00
dependency
Towards loss of Rs. 1,20,000-00
consortium
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00
Towards funeral & Rs. 15,000-00
obsequies ceremony
expenses
Medical expenses Rs. 16,611-00
Total Rs.28,32,211-00
47. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.28,32,211/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh thirty two thousand two hundred and eleven only), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as per the proposition 31 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 laid down by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020 from the date of petition till its realisation.
LIABILITY:
48. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioners that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U-
9159 alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the petitioners in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the R.C. owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
49. As per Ex.R2 insurance policy was valid from 22.2.2019 to 21.2.2020. The alleged accident had taken place on 31.8.2019. As such, the respondent No.2 being the insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till 32 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019 its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 is in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
50. In view of my due discussions on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the Legal Representatives 1(a) to 1(c) of the deceased petitioner U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The L.R. 1(a) to (c) of the deceased petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.28,32,211/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh thirty two thousand two hundred and eleven only) from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
33 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the L.R. 1 (a) of the deceased petitioner is entitled for the share of 50% and L.R. 1(b) & (c) are entitled the share of 25% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest of L.R. 1(a) of the deceased petitioner, 40% of her share shall be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% of her share shall be released in favour of her through due process of law.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest of L.R.1(b) &(c) of deceased petitioner, being minors, entire amount shall be deposited in any Nationalised/Scheduled bank till they attain age of majority. After attaining the age of majority, entire amount shall be released to them through due process of law. The guardian of the LR 1(a) of the deceased petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
34 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-
each.
[ Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of July 2025).
Digitally signed by DHANESH MUGALI DHANESH Date: MUGALI 2025.07.24 15:46:28 +0530 (DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU. ANNEXURE:
List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Smt.Veena PW2 Shri Kishore M.R. PW3 Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P.1 First Information Report
Ex.P.2 FIS
Ex.P2 (a) Translated copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 Spot sketch
Ex.P.4 Accident information report
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
Ex.P.6 Charge sheet
Ex.P.7 Death certificate
35 SCCH-18 MVC 6015/2019
Ex.P.8 MLC Extract
Ex.P.9 & Discharge summaries
Ex.P10
Ex.P.11 Operation notes
Ex.P.12 & Aadhar cards
Ex.P.13
Ex.P.14 & Birth certificates
Ex.P15
Ex.P.16 Medical bills
Ex.P.17 Prescriptions
Ex.P.18 Authorisation letter
Ex.P.19 I.P. Record
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Shri Santhosh (Discarded) RW2 Kum.Yogashree
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R2 Insurance policy
Digitally signed
DHANESH by DHANESH
MUGALI
MUGALI Date: 2025.07.24
15:46:38 +0530
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.